This patch fixes a tailcall issue caused by abusing the tailcall in bpf2bpf feature. As we know, tail_call_cnt propagates by rax from caller to callee when to call subprog in tailcall context. But, like the following example, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT won't work because of missing tail_call_cnt back-propagation from callee to caller. \#include <linux/bpf.h> \#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> \#include "bpf_legacy.h" struct { __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY); __uint(max_entries, 1); __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32)); __uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32)); } jmp_table SEC(".maps"); int count = 0; static __noinline int subprog_tail1(struct __sk_buff *skb) { bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 0); return 0; } static __noinline int subprog_tail2(struct __sk_buff *skb) { bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 0); return 0; } SEC("tc") int entry(struct __sk_buff *skb) { volatile int ret = 1; count++; subprog_tail1(skb); subprog_tail2(skb); return ret; } char __license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; At run time, the tail_call_cnt in entry() will be propagated to subprog_tail1() and subprog_tail2(). But, when the tail_call_cnt in subprog_tail1() updates when bpf_tail_call_static(), the tail_call_cnt in entry() won't be updated at the same time. As a result, in entry(), when tail_call_cnt in entry() is less than MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT and subprog_tail1() returns because of MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT limit, bpf_tail_call_static() in suprog_tail2() is able to run because the tail_call_cnt in subprog_tail2() propagated from entry() is less than MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT. So, how many tailcalls are there for this case if no error happens?